bowten Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 Could one of you geniuses on here please do a mathematical problem for me.This is the question;I have a plastic container that measures in old money,22 inches x 6ft x 5inches deep.I need the total amount of volume in litres and then this converting to weight.Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albion Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) Could one of you geniuses on here please do a mathematical problem for me.This is the question;I have a plastic container that measures in old money,22 inches x 6ft x 5inches deep.I need the total amount of volume in litres and then this converting to weight.Thanks. Edited to correct miscalc I make that 129.79 litres which, filled with water, would be 129.79 kg. Roger Edited July 8, 2012 by Albion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justme Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 =7920 cubic inches =4.58 cubic feet =129.69 L But without knowing the liquid I cant give the weight. For water it would be 129.69kg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teadaemon Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) First, convert all measurements to inches, so 22" x 72" x 5" multiply all measurements by 25.4 to get them in millimetres 558.8 x 1828.8 x 127 multiply all measurements together to get volume in cubic millimetres 129785546.88 divide by 1,000,000 to get volume in litres 129.786 to 3dp, or just under 130 litres if you don't need perfect accuracy. Edited to add, how much it weighs will depend on the density of whatever you fill it with. for water that's about 130kg. For diesel the value can vary quite a bit, the list I've found suggests 0.85 to 0.92 kg per litre, which would result in a value between 110kg and 120kg (roughly). Edited July 8, 2012 by Teadaemon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Mack Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 Could one of you geniuses on here please do a mathematical problem for me.This is the question;I have a plastic container that measures in old money,22 inches x 6ft x 5inches deep.I need the total amount of volume in litres and then this converting to weight.Thanks. Assuming these are the internal dimensions of the container: 4.583 cubic feet = 129.8 litres. If filled with water the contents will weigh 1.3 tonnes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 Assuming these are the internal dimensions of the container: 4.583 cubic feet = 129.8 litres. If filled with water the contents will weigh 1.3 tonnes. Er no sir 129.8 kg - you are out by a factor of ten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keeping Up Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 Assuming these are the internal dimensions of the container: 4.583 cubic feet = 129.8 litres. If filled with water the contents will weigh 1.3 tonnes. Heavy water? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 129.8 according to my son... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowten Posted July 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 That was really quick by all of you,thanks very much.(water by the way) 129.8 according to my son... Good lad,he will do well. Edited to correct miscalc I make that 129.79 litres which, filled with water, would be 129.79 kg. Roger Not bad Roger Heavy water? 1.3 tons,brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timleech Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 Could one of you geniuses on here please do a mathematical problem for me.This is the question;I have a plastic container that measures in old money,22 inches x 6ft x 5inches deep.I need the total amount of volume in litres and then this converting to weight.Thanks. You could do it in old money. In feet,22/12 x 6 x 5/12 = 4.58 cu ft x 6.25 = 28.6 gallons. For water, 1 gallon weighs 10 lb, so 286 lb, or 130 kg, near as dammit. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bagdad Boatman (waits) Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 one pint of pure water weighs a pond and a quarter. My old mum used to say. Not that it helps you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowten Posted July 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 Now the reasons for the calculations.I am thinking of placing said plastic container(baffled and for drinking water)one third down the boat from the bow as an extra tank.This will give extra range for liveaboards and cc'ers and also help to ballast the boat(widebeam) a bit a more as I feel the bow and the boat overall could do with lowering a bit.I could quite easily add some more ballast when furniture,clothes and all the other liveaboard stuff as been added but I might as well add weight that will be usable.Your thoughts and criticism invited as ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveC Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 one pint of pure water weighs a pond and a quarter. My old mum used to say. Not that it helps you. Depends how big your POND is! Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 Now the reasons for the calculations.I am thinking of placing said plastic container(baffled and for drinking water)one third down the boat from the bow as an extra tank.This will give extra range for liveaboards and cc'ers and also help to ballast the boat(widebeam) a bit a more as I feel the bow and the boat overall could do with lowering a bit.I could quite easily add some more ballast when furniture,clothes and all the other liveaboard stuff as been added but I might as well add weight that will be usable.Your thoughts and criticism invited as ever. The problem with using water in a tank as ballast is that you lose any effect when the tank is empty. If the boat needs more ballast to trim it correctly then it needs something more permanent I would say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athy Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 OT: Martin I have only just noticed that you have changed your forum name from MJG to The Dog House. I know it's the name of your boat, but I assume that MJG are your initials; what prompted the change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowten Posted July 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 The problem with using water in a tank as ballast is that you lose any effect when the tank is empty. If the boat needs more ballast to trim it correctly then it needs something more permanent I would say. Yes,quite right but it would only brought into use as a back up.Yer know,when in shower and yer know yer should have got water at the last watering hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 OT: Martin I have only just noticed that you have changed your forum name from MJG to The Dog House. I know it's the name of your boat, but I assume that MJG are your initials; what prompted the change? Nothing other than it's the name of our boat and a good few forum members match the name of their boat to their forum name. I've always loved the boats name and it's more interesting than three boring initials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bottle Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 The only thing wrong with that is, Oh, I will not bother to fill up as we have a back up, then the back up empties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizzard Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 It would remain full if connected to the main tank, assuming its lower that is and the take off pipe for both is from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 Yes,quite right but it would only brought into use as a back up.Yer know,when in shower and yer know yer should have got water at the last watering hole. I can see the benefit of having a backup, other than if it's not drawn on very often it could stagnate, if it is not drawn on for drinking water though then this of course would not be an problem, unless of course we ignite the whole Legionella discussion again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowten Posted July 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) I can see the benefit of having a backup, other than if it's not drawn on very often it could stagnate, if it is not drawn on for drinking water though then this of course would not be an problem, unless of course we ignite the whole Legionella discussion again. No, this tank would be drawn from first as it is in line from the main tank. Edited July 8, 2012 by bowten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowten Posted July 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 It would remain full if connected to the main tank, assuming its lower that is and the take off pipe for both is from it. Yep well done bizzard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 Yep well done bizzard. Fairy nuff I'm out - I'm having problems visualising what you are proposing in the absence of a diagram. Other than all you are doing is creating a bigger tank overall which will run out at some point if you push things thinking you have more capacity and then......... drip drip drip...no water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowten Posted July 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 Fairy nuff I'm out - I'm having problems visualising what you are proposing in the absence of a diagram. Other than all you are doing is creating a bigger tank overall which will run out at some point if you push things thinking you have more capacity and then......... drip drip drip...no water. Now now ,don't go.The idea is to use any extra ballast as a useful item,it would be useful if you are gaining a larger tank.I know the scenario you are suggesting but I doubt this would happen too often.I asked for constructive criticism and that's what you did and thankyou. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Mack Posted July 8, 2012 Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 Er no sir 129.8 kg - you are out by a factor of ten Just checking that you're all awake! Of course, if you filled the tank with bismuth or molybdenum... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now